Tripura High Court
Md. Babul Miah S/O. Late Md. Rahamat Ali vs The State Of Tripura (Through The ... on 16 December, 2022
Author: S.G.Chattopadhyay
Bench: Arindam Lodh, S.G.Chattopadhyay
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 114/2022
Md. Babul Miah S/O. Late Md. Rahamat Ali, resident of vill.-
Matinagar, P.O. Rayermura, P.S. Amtali, Tripura West.
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1.The State of Tripura (Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat
Complex, P.O. New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN - 799010.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, Government of
Tripura, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West
Tripura, PIN-799001.
-----Respondent(s)
WA 113/2022
Md. Abu Jalal Miah S/O. Kudrat Ali, resident of Vill.-
Matinagar, P.O. Rayermura, P.S. Amtali, Tripura West.
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1.The State of Tripura (Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat
Complex, P.O. New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura, West Tripura, PIN- 799010.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, Government of
Tripura, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West
Tripura, PIN - 799001.
-----Respondent(s)
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K.Deb, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B.Debnath, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.Debbarma, Addl.GA.
Date of hearing : 18.11.2022
Date of delivery of : 16.12.2022
Judgment and Order
Whether fit for reporting
Yes No
JUDGMENT
(S.G.Chattopadhyay), J [1] Both of these appeals are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.200 of 2022 and WP(C)No.201 of 2022. The facts and law involved in the appeals being identical, they are combined together for disposal by this common judgment. [2] The sole question arising for our consideration in these appeals are whether the appellants are entitled to the benefits from the date of their appointment under the grant in aid Madrassas alike the petitioners of WP(C) No.438 of 2016 [Md. Abdul Malik Vs.State of Tripura and Ors.].
WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 3 [3] Heard Mr. S.K.Deb, learned Sr. Advocate appearing along with Mr. B.Debnath, advocate for the appellants as well as Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the state respondents.
[4] The brief facts of the applicant's case are that they were appointed as Madrassa teachers in fixed pay under Grants in Aid scheme with the approval of the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura[Respondent No.2], by notification dated 08.03.2011[Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition]. In the said notification, the names of the appellants appear at Sl.No.30 and 31. The said notification also indicates that they were appointed as Under Graduate Madrassa teachers and they were placed in fixed pay of Rs.5,660/- keeping in abeyance the regular scale of pay of Rs.5,310/- -24,000/-.
[5] Mr. S.K.Deb, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants has argued that the notification dated 08.03.2011[Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition] clearly demonstrates that both of the appellants were graduates on the date of their appointment as Madrassa teachers. Appellant Abu Jalal Miah of Writ Appeal No.113 of 2022 was a Bachelor in pure Science, WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 4 whereas the other appellant namely Babul Miah of Writ Appeal No.114 of 2022 was a Commerce graduate (B.Com). Even though they were graduates, they were placed in fixed pay of Rs.5,670/- in the pay scale of Rs.5310/--24000/- meant for the Under Graduate Madrassa teachers. Learned counsel has contended that both of the appellants being similarly situated with the petitioners of WP(C)No.438 of 2016 are entitled to the same benefits as per judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in WP(C)No.438 of 2016 [Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition] which was also upheld in Writ Appeal with minor modification by judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 [Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition]. Learned counsel has referred to the said judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in WP(C)No. 438 of 2016 [Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition] which reads as under:
"[7] There is no dispute that the petitioners have either Bachelors Degree, Kamil [2-3 years, general], MM [2 years, till 1997] from the West Bengal Madrassa Board, Madrassa Final [MF] from the Assam Madrassa Board and Fazil, Afjal, Ulama, Afjajul Ullom and Fazeleat from the Madrassas recognized by the Central or the State Government Board or the Universities of India. There is no dispute that at the time bringing the Madrassas under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme by the State, all the petitioners were serving in the Madrassas. From the notification dated 19.07.2013 [Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.439 of 2016], it is apparent that the persons appointed in the Junior Madrassas, Fazil Madrassas, catalogued in Annexures-A & B appended to the said notification dated 19.07.2013 have been given the fixed pay keeping the scale of pay of Rs.5300-24000/- with WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 5 G.P. Rs.2400 [PB-2] w.e.f. 01.08.2013 [for the persons catalogued in Annexure-A] and the scale of pay of Rs.5300-24000/- with G.P. Rs.2100 [PB2] w.e.f. 01.08.2013 [for the persons catalogued in Annexure-B] in abeyance. According to the reply filed by the respondents, the said notification is applicable for the persons who were appointed directly after the management of the Madrassas brought under the Grant- in-Aid Scheme.
[8] The state cannot make such unreasonable distinction amongst the persons in the same class for the reason that they were absorbed under the Grant-in-Aid establishment in consideration of their appointments made by the private management but the state did not dispute that the petitioners and those persons benefited by the notification dated 19.07.2013 are holding the same status and discharging exactly the same duties. It has been admitted by the respondents, as it would be evident from the reply, that the petitioners are getting the pay scale of Rs.1300-3320/- from the date of their appointment under the Grant-in-Madrassas but they have not given that benefit in terms of the notification dated 19.07.2013. They are entitled to the equal pay and hence, the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the notification dated 19.07.2013 form the date of their appointment under the Grant-in-Madrassas meaning from the day when they were absorbed under the Grant- in-Aid Scheme. The petitioners shall not be kept in the fixed pay by keeping their regular scale of pay in abeyance for 5[five] years, if the petitioners had completed five years of service before they were brought under the Grant-in-Aid Madrassas. The arrears as may accrue for the above direction shall be paid within 6[six] months from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondent No.2.
Emphasis added"
[6] Counsel has also referred to the judgment dated 11.02.2010[Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition] passed in the writ appeal, the relevant extract of which is as under:
WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 6 "The Government does not dispute that all the petitioners are serving as regular teachers, Graduate as well as Post Graduate in educational institutions which are covered within the fold of Grant-in-Aid. All the petitioners also possess requisite educational qualifications acquired from various educational institutions situated in West Bengal and Assam which by the notification dated 23.06.2010 have been recognized as equivalent to the degrees issued by Tripura Education Board and Tripura University. That being the position, there is no distinction in either the educational qualifications or the nature of duties performed by the petitioners vis-a-vis 33 teachers who under the said notification dated 19th July, 2013 are granted certain pay scale. In absence of any other distinction, mere fact that some of the teachers were employed prior to a cut-off date and some post the said date of 23.06.2010, could not be a ground for denying equal wages. The decision to treat specified degrees issued by educational institutions situated in West Bengal and Assam as equivalent to those issued by Tripura Education Board and Tripura University, may have been taken on 23rd June, 2010, the same must be applied to all those who have been granted such certificates irrespective of the date of grant of the same.
Any other view would make the qualifications of the petitioners not satisfying with the requirements of employment. Even otherwise, the said notification dated 23rd June 2010, nowhere provides that only those teachers who obtained such certificates from the specified institutions after the date of the notification can claim equivalence with the State certificates. Even the State has not raised any such contention. The cause of action arose with the Government passing the impugned notification dated 19th July 2013. The petitions were filed nearly 3 years later. We would not, therefore, burden the State exchequer with the arrears till the date of filing of the petitions. In partial modification of the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is provided that the petitioners would be entitled to arrears of salary as per the directions of the learned Single Judge only from the date of the filing of the respective petitions and not from any early period. The modified directions of the learned Single Judge shall be carried out within a period of 4(four) months from today."
WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 7 [7] Learned Sr. Counsel contends that the claim of the appellants is squarely covered by the said common judgment dated 30.11.2017 delivered in WP(C) No.438 of 2016 [Md. Abdul Malik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.] which was also upheld by the appellate court in Writ Appeal by judgment dated 11.02.2020 [Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition] with minor modification. According to learned counsel of the appellants, the distinction between the appellants and the petitioners of WP(C) No.438 of 2016 made by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and the appellants are entitled to the same benefits which have been given to the petitioners of WP(C) No.438 of 2016 as they are similarly circumstanced.
[8] Mr.Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl.GA submits that both the appellants were inducted in service in Madrassa school as Under Graduate teachers. The benefit of higher pay scale vis a vis the higher qualification was extended to those incumbents who had acquired higher qualification on or before 31.12.1991. The appellants, who obtained graduation degree after 31.132.1991 were not considered for the benefits which were extended to the petitioners of WP (C) No.438 of 2016 [Md. Abdul Malik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.] WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 8 [9] We have considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties and examined the records available before us. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge which reads as under:
"[9] There is no dispute as regards the qualification of the petitioners that they are graduates of the recognized universities. From their very appointment, as it is apparent that they were not entertained against their qualification of Bachelors Degree. Hence, it is difficult to accept that both the petitioners are entitled to the benefits alike the petitioners of Abdul Malik (supra). The petitioners are not entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs.5300-24000/- PB-II with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- [pre-revised] from the date of their appointment under the Grant-in Aid Madrassas. But the respondents may consider their appointment in the pay scale of Rs.5300-24000/- PB-II with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- [pre-revised] w.e.f. 01.08.2013 having regard to their qualification. But there is no extant rule based on which this court may direct the respondents to grant the similar benefits as extended by the judgment dated 30.11.2020 [Annexure-9 to the writ petitions] and the judgment dated 11.02.2020 [Annexure-10 to the writ petitions].
[10] Having taken this view, these writ petitions stand dismissed. However, the petitioners may file a fresh representation to the respondents to upgrade their pay scale to that of the Graduate Teachers considering their qualification, which is commensurate for appointment as the Graduate Teachers. They may also make reference to the nature of job they discharge."
[10] It would appear from the impugned judgment that learned Single Judge having regard to the qualification of the appellants viewed that the State-respondents should consider their WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 9 appointment in the pay-scale of Rs.5300-2400/- with grade-pay of Rs.2400 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 01.08.2013 but the learned Single Judge actually declined to grant such benefits to the appellants as extended to the petitioners of WP(C) 438 of 2016 since there was no extant rule based on which such direction should be issued. In WP(C) 438 of 2016, the petitioners were granted regular pay-scale of Graduate-Teacher on the basis of the finding that even though they were holding the same status and discharging exactly the same duties and they were also possessing same or higher qualification, were not given the same pay-scale and other benefits which were being given to the similarly situated Madrasa Teachers. Therefore, the Court held that State cannot make such unreasonable distinction amongst the persons in the same class and granted the relief to the petitioners. In writ appeal, the judgment dated 30.11.2017 rendered in WP(C) 438 of 2016 was modified to fix the effective date by the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, it was ordered that payments of arrears shall be made from the date of absorption whereas in the writ appeal, it was held that payment of arrears shall be made from the date of filing the petitions before the Court. The judgment of the learned WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 10 Single Judge in WP(C)438 of 2016 was upheld in Writ Appeal except this modification.
[11] Notification dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure -5 to the Writ Petition) clearly demonstrates that the present appellants were graduates when they were brought to the post of Madrassa Teachers in the Madrassas under the grants in aid scheme. Undisputedly, the appellants were also holding the same status and they were discharging exactly the same duties with the petitioners of WP(C) 438 of 2016. Therefore, evidently, the case of the petitioners is covered under the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in WP(C) 438 of 2016. As such, they are entitled to the same benefits which have been given to the petitioners of WP(C) 438 of 2016. However, the appellants will get the reliefs from the date of their filing the writ petitions as modified by judgment and order dated 11.02.2020 in the writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 in WP(C) 438 of 2016. [12] In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside. The State-respondents are directed to provide same benefits to the appellants which have been given to the petitioners in WP(C) WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022 11 438 of 2016 w.e.f. the date of their filing the writ petitions and the compliance be made within a period of 4(four) months from today.
In terms of the above, the appeals stand allowed and disposed of.
(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY),J (ARINDAM LODH), J Saikat Sarma WA 114 of 2022 WA 113 of 2022